Utah & Indiana

Laowai · Post #1 » by **Laowai** » Mon Aug 15, 2011 1:02 am

This is a simple trade

Indiana out George and in Favors

It fills the need of Indiana for a PF and helps Utah clear out clutter at PF ( Kanter, Favors, Jefferson, Milsap & Okur )

dukeknicksirish · Post #2 » by **dukeknicksirish** » Mon Aug 15, 2011 1:44 am

I agree with the cluter, but I don't think they get rid of Favors... More likely Millsap or Jefferson....

& also, nobody would want Okur

basketballwacko2 · Post #3 » by **basketballwacko2** » Mon Aug 15, 2011 5:49 am

The Jazz are a little loaded up front but I'm not sure the Pacers would be willing to move George, the kid has something special.

Post #4 » by **Miller4ever** » Mon Aug 15, 2011 6:25 am

George has more upside between the two. Millsap may or may not make me change my mind.

Post #5 » by **Gremz** » Mon Aug 15, 2011 9:42 am

Yeah, I don't think Utah is gonna give up on Favors just yet. Jefferson and Millsap will be moved long before him.

Moooose · Post #6 » by **Moooose** » Mon Aug 15, 2011 12:06 pm

How about offering Granger instead of George?
Indiana could then have something better in return. They don't have much huge contracts to purge except for Okur. But if we could get Favors, future picks or Alec Burks, and Kirilenko (S&T to match salaries), i'd do it.

Starkiller · Post #7 » by **Starkiller** » Tue Aug 16, 2011 3:28 pm

IMO any trades involving George or Granger, that are realistic anyway, are not good for us since it will leave a hole at SG. Then we have to find one of those.

Moooose · Post #8 » by **Moooose** » Tue Aug 16, 2011 7:19 pm

Starkiller wrote:IMO any trades involving George or Granger, that are realistic anyway, are not good for us since it will leave a hole at SG. Then we have to find one of those.

But if we could unload one of them for a REAL starting SG, why not?
Both of them are natural SF's. And i think we could actually get someone good for Granger.

Solid · Post #9 » by **Solid** » Wed Aug 17, 2011 12:12 am

I thought about posting this before.
I have to agree it improves our team, and very likely theirs too.

Favors may not have quite the upside but he does have upside, he's bigger, and he's a young high draft pick in a position of need. We'd have to do it.

They may not, unless they do not like what they can get trade wise when they try (as they should) to balance their team.

I'm guessing we may have to sweeten it a bit. Not many Pacer fans would want to give up George + anything of value.

Even straight up though we'd have a lesser team than one in which we keep George and get a player just as good as Favors (or better).

There just is no point in us making any trade unless we strike out in free agency.

Wizop · Post #10 » by **Wizop** » Wed Aug 17, 2011 11:29 am

Favors did not impress me when he played against us last year. McRoberts outplayed him. he may have a big upside but so does George. no thanks.

Starkiller · Post #11 » by **Starkiller** » Wed Aug 17, 2011 3:13 pm

Moooose wrote:
Starkiller wrote:IMO any trades involving George or Granger, that are realistic anyway, are not good for us since it will leave a hole at SG. Then we have to find one of those.

But if we could unload one of them for a REAL starting SG, why not?
Both of them are natural SF's. And i think we could actually get someone good for Granger.

PG isn't a real SG? Just because he was playing SF in college doesn't mean he can't play SG too. Stephen Jackson did it for a long time. Paul is plenty athletic enough for SG and has the size for SF. It's better to have him w/ Danny than just have one. ESPECIALLY if he lives up to potential.

Unless we are getting a bonafide all star, I do not want to trade Danny or Paul.

laydo · Post #12 » by **laydo** » Thu Aug 18, 2011 10:20 am

By the REAL starting SG, I think Moooose meant someone who dribbles well enough and can be the playmaker sometimes. However, there are not much choices for the Pacers to deal either Danny or Paul for a REAL starting SG.

If we are moving Granger, we would have to ask a young All-Star player in return.

Brandon Roy? He's a nice option before he's injured. But now? Not likley.
Iggy from PHI? He's more of a defender than a scorer. And he's also learning to lead the team like Danny.
Monta Ellis? I don't think Bird like his playing style.

What if we move George? Well, Paul is in his rookie contract, which means we may looking to trade a player who's also in his rookie contract.

O.J. Mayo or Eric Gordon or Evan Turner? All these three are good. But I'd like to see how high Paul can reach in the futre.

Wizop · Post #13 » by **Wizop** » Thu Aug 18, 2011 12:26 pm

laydo wrote:By the REAL starting SG, I think Moooose meant someone who dribbles well enough and can be the playmaker sometimes.

you mean like George Hill? Lance Stephenson? even D Jones? we've got guys like that. besides if Paul isn't a real shooting guard then Reggie wasn't either because he wasn't great one on one.

I'd love to relieve Utah of one of their extra bigs but I don't see wing as an issue.

Starkiller · Post #14 » by **Starkiller** » Thu Aug 18, 2011 2:34 pm

laydo wrote:By the REAL starting SG, I think Moooose meant someone who dribbles well enough and can be the playmaker sometimes. However, there are not much choices for the Pacers to deal either Danny or Paul for a REAL starting SG.

If we are moving Granger, we would have to ask a young All-Star player in return.

Brandon Roy? He's a nice option before he's injured. But now? Not likley.
Iggy from PHI? He's more of a defender than a scorer. And he's also learning to lead the team like Danny.
Monta Ellis? I don't think Bird like his playing style.

What if we move George? Well, Paul is in his rookie contract, which means we may looking to trade a player who's also in his rookie contract.

O.J. Mayo or Eric Gordon or Evan Turner? All these three are good. But I'd like to see how high Paul can reach in the futre.

If we have a chance to turn PG or Granger into Eric Gordon we need to do it.

Moooose · Post #15 » by **Moooose** » Fri Aug 19, 2011 11:41 am

Starkiller wrote:
laydo wrote:By the REAL starting SG, I think Moooose meant someone who dribbles well enough and can be the playmaker sometimes. However, there are not much choices for the Pacers to deal either Danny or Paul for a REAL starting SG.

If we are moving Granger, we would have to ask a young All-Star player in return.

Brandon Roy? He's a nice option before he's injured. But now? Not likley.
Iggy from PHI? He's more of a defender than a scorer. And he's also learning to lead the team like Danny.
Monta Ellis? I don't think Bird like his playing style.

What if we move George? Well, Paul is in his rookie contract, which means we may looking to trade a player who's also in his rookie contract.

O.J. Mayo or Eric Gordon or Evan Turner? All these three are good. But I'd like to see how high Paul can reach in the futre.

If we have a chance to turn PG or Granger into Eric Gordon we need to do it.

To me, a REAL STARTING SG means someone whose primary role is to score, someone who can take the big shots when needed. Someone that relentlessly look for ways to make points. Someone that, somehow, Danny Granger isn't.

Reggie was a true SG because he can produce, and he was always being called upon to provide offensively. He may not be a good one on one player but he makes up for it by trying to make himself open on almost every possession.

Yes, we have tons of guys who can play 2 like George Hill, Stephenson, Rush, Dahntay. But is there someone capable of starting? Among those guys George Hill could be the obvious choice. But he's too small to pair up with Collison.

There is a reason why the position was called "SHOOTING" guard. :roll:

Wizop · Post #16 » by **Wizop** » Fri Aug 19, 2011 6:31 pm

There was a recent story in the Star reporting on a 32 point night by Tamika Catchings. She said she'd restyled her offense after watching George Hill play so effortlessly in the scrimmages at IUPUI this summer. If the season ever starts, I think George is going to have a bigger than expected impact.

captaincrunk · Post #17 » by **captaincrunk** » Sat Aug 20, 2011 9:53 am

The Value is right, the fit is right, I just doubt either team wants to trade away a future all star. No one wants to be burned.

Post #18 » by **jazzfan1971** » Sat Sep 10, 2011 7:13 pm

Sorry, the Jazz don't even think about this.

Looks like most of you wouldn't do it anyway. So, no point.

Jazz have Hayward at SF and just BARELY drafted Burks to be SG. So even the fit is wrong with Utah. Utah's only hole is PG and there are only 2 or 3 guys I'd consider moving Favors for who play PG and Collison isn't one of those 3.

But, no. Absolutely zero chance that utah considers this. Not only is the fit bad for Utah Favor's value is much higher than George.

Post #19 » by **Miller4ever** » Sat Sep 10, 2011 7:20 pm

From where we're sitting (with a kool-aid in one hand) Favors is reminiscent of Juwan Howard while George is like T-Mac.

Post #20 » by **jazzfan1971** » Sat Sep 10, 2011 7:36 pm

Juwan Howard?
Tmac?

Can't we do a little better comparisons? Howard averaged .3 blocks in 31 minutes for his career. Favors had .9 in 19 minutes. Favors is long and athletic. Howard was unathletic and not long. Howard was a terrific outside threat. Favors isn't much of an outside threat.

Just a terrible comparison.

The Tmac comparison is a little stronger, but, Tmac was a gifted scoring pogo stick. I don't think gifted scoring pogo stick when I think of George. (look at differences in blocks if you like)

Try again.